Navigation

Archive | guideline

Wednesday, September 16th, 2020

Second Circuit: On a motion under the First Step Act, a court isn’t obligated to “recalculate” the Sentencing Guidelines range to account for new Guidelines provisions “or new judicial interpretations of existing Guidelines.” Only Guideline-changes “that flow from the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010” have to be considered. But there’s an acknowledged circuit split. United States v. Moore, __F.3d__, No. 19-1390-cr, 2020 WL 5523205 (2d Cir. Sept. 15, 2020).

In United States v. Moore, No. 19-1390-cr (available here), the Circuit (Nardini, joined by Chin and Sullivan), holds that, on a motion for a sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act, a court isn’t required to “recalculate” the Guidelines range under the current law, unless (and only to the extent) the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 changed the Guidelines range.

Here, the district court found Moore eligible for relief under the First Step Act, as indeed he was: he was sentenced in 2009 for  “possessing with intent to distribute more than 5 grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B).” Op. at 4.  The district court  nevertheless declined to exercise it’s discretionary authority, under the Act, to reduce the (188-month) sentence. The Circuit affirmed that decision. Op. at 2, 26-27.

Moore’s argument was that the district court miscalculated the Guidelines …

Posted by
Categories: career offender, First Step Act, guideline

Posted By
Categories: career offender, First Step Act, guideline

Continue Reading
Tuesday, August 4th, 2020

District court erred in relying on uncharged conduct to select the applicable Guideline provision, and the error is not harmless despite the court’s claim that it would have imposed the same sentence under the correct Guideline.

In United States v. Huberfeld, 2d Cir. No. 19-436 (L), the Court (opinion by Judge Pooler, joined by Judges Lynch and Menashi) vacated both a 30-month sentence and a $19 million order of restitution for basically the same reason – the district court erred in relying on uncharged criminal conduct, beyond and broader than what the defendant actually pleaded guilty to via a negotiated information and plea agreement, in selecting the applicable Guideline provision and awarding restitution. The Court also found that the Guideline-selection error is not harmless, despite the district court’s claim that it would’ve imposed the same 30-month sentence under the correct Guideline, because under the circumstances here, the Court was not “confident” that the incorrect range did not “clearly” affect the court’s selection of the ultimate sentence.

Here’s the factual gist. Huberfeld solicited investments for Platinum Partners, a hedge fund. He spoke to co-conspirator Jona Rechnitz, …

Posted by
Categories: bribery, guideline, restitution, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: bribery, guideline, restitution, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Wednesday, June 3rd, 2020

The Second Circuit vacates and remands for resentencing because of the erroneous application of the Sentencing Guidelines enhancements for possessing a “dangerous weapon” (§ 2B3.1, cmt. n.2) and “physical restraint” (§ 2B3.1(b)(4)(B)) – – which increase the offense level for robbery offenses. United States v. Taylor, No. 18-1710,  __F.3d__, 2020 WL 2745536  (May 27,  2020). 

In United States v. Taylor, the Circuit interprets two provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines that increase the offense level for robbery. It concludes that the sparse facts “set forth in the Presentence Report (PSR), upon which the district court relied at sentencing, are insufficient to support the application of either enhancement.” 2020 WL 2745536 at *1.

First, the Circuit holds that a defendant’s “hand” doesn’t become an “object” qualifying for the “dangerous weapon” enhancement when he gestures (with his hand) that he has a gun in his belt, but he’s actually unarmed and doesn’t have an object that “resembles” a gun. See U.S.S.G.§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(E).

Second, on the physical restraint enhancement, the Circuit holds that a robber’s act of ordering  a person to move from one room into another room — without actually retraining the person or locking the person in a room — doesn’t qualify as “physical[] restrain[t]” under …

Posted by
Categories: breach, guideline, robbery

Posted By
Categories: breach, guideline, robbery

Continue Reading
Monday, April 17th, 2017

Second Circuit Vacates 225-month Sentence in Child Pornography Case as Substantively Unreasonable

Today, in United States v. Jenkins, the Second Circuit concluded that a 225-month sentence for the possession and transportation of child pornography was substantively unreasonable and vacated and remanded for resentencing, concluding that the district court’s sentence “went far overboard” and was “shockingly high”  Opinion at 11, 12.

Jenkins was convicted after trial of one count of possession of child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B)) and one count of transportation of child pornography (18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(1)).  He was sentenced to concurrent time of 120 months on the possession count (the statutory maximum) and 225 months on the transportation count (just below the statutory maximum of 240 months), and to 25 years of supervised release.  The child pornography he possessed (and brought with him on a family vacation to Canada) was for personal use.  He did not produce or distribute child pornography and did not attempt to contact a minor.  This …

Posted by
Categories: child pornography, guideline

Posted By
Categories: child pornography, guideline

Continue Reading
Tuesday, March 7th, 2017

The Supreme Court Holds that the Advisory Guideline Are not Subject to Vagueness Challenges

In Beckles v. United States, 580 U.S. ___, 2017 WL 855781 (March 6, 2017) the Supreme Court held that Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 2551, 135 S.Ct. ___ (2015), does not apply to the Guidelines’ residual clause because “the advisory Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process clause.” Slip op. at 1. In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court’s reasoning was based on the advisory nature of the Guidelines since United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Slip op. at 7. Because the now advisory guidelines “merely guide the district court’s discretion,” they do not implicate the vagueness doctrine’s concerns with notice and arbitrary enforcement. Slip op. at 7-9. Justice Thomas noted that the decision did “not render the advisory Guidelines immune from constitutional scrutiny,” only void-for-vagueness scrutiny; they are still subject to ex post facto rules and Eighth Amendment …

Posted by
Categories: career offender, guideline, Johnson, vagueness

Posted By
Categories: career offender, guideline, Johnson, vagueness

Continue Reading
Thursday, February 16th, 2017

Second Circuit Vacates Denial of Sentence Reduction

United States v. Melendez, No. 16-1019 (2d Cir. Feb. 16, 2007) (Leval, Calabresi, Carney).

In this summary order, the Circuit vacated the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The Court ruled that the district court (Judge Hurley) clearly erred in deciding that the defendant (a client of Federal Defenders) was legally ineligible for a sentence reduction. Judge Hurley ruled that the defendant was ineligible because, at the original sentencing, conducted by Judge Platt, the court had found him responsible for 44.8 kilograms of heroin, a quantity that precluded him from receiving a sentence reduction. The Circuit held, however, that Judge Platt never adopted the PSR’s finding of 44.8 kilograms or otherwise made a specific quantity finding. The court merely said that the PSR’s range was “accurately computed,” which would have been true if the quantity was anywhere above 10 kilograms. Thus, the …

Posted by
Categories: 3582(c)(2), drug quantity, guideline

Posted By
Categories: 3582(c)(2), drug quantity, guideline

Continue Reading
Tuesday, January 17th, 2017

Circuit affirms sentence despite district court’s application of Guideline range that differed from parties’ plea agreement

In United States v. Byrd, the Second Circuit affirmed a sentence despite the District Court finding an applicable guideline range different from the one agreed to by the parties in a written plea agreement.  The Circuit held that although “district courts have the discretion to give effect to Guidelines calculations in plea agreements that result in downward departure from the correct Guidelines range,” there is no affirmative obligation that the district court give effect to such calculations.  Unless the district court misunderstood its authority to depart, the decision not to depart is generally unreviewable.…

Posted by
Categories: guideline, plea agreement

Posted By
Categories: guideline, plea agreement

Continue Reading
Thursday, December 1st, 2016

The Unusual Nature of the Guidelines’ Fraud Loss Enhancements Is a Ground for Downward Variance

In an opinion written by Judge Newman, the Second Circuit today vacated the defendants’ sentences of 30 and 21 months, respectively, for food stamp fraud for the district court to consider imposing non-guideline sentences on the ground that the defendants’ Guidelines ranges were significantly increased by the loss enhancements, an unusual feature of the Guideline scheme. United States v. Algahaim, No. 15-2024(L)(2d Cir. Dec. 1 2016). The sentences here were “driven by the loss amount,” which increased the offense level from a 6-month base to levels 18 and 16 respectively. Slip op. at 9. The Court held: “Where the Commission has assigned a rather low base offense level to a crime and then increased it significantly by a loss enhancement, that combination of circumstances entitles a sentencing judge to consider a non-Guidelines sentence.” Id. at 11.

The Court acknowledged that the Commission had the authority to use loss amount …

Posted by
Categories: guideline, loss calculation, Uncategorized

Posted By
Categories: guideline, loss calculation, Uncategorized

Continue Reading
Tuesday, October 11th, 2016

The 5-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distribution of child pornography “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value,” requires “specific, individualized evidence” of the bargained-for exchange.

Last week, the Second Circuit vacated the sentence in United States v. Bennett, No. 15-0024 (“Opinion”). The Court held that, in order to justify the 5-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) for distribution of child pornography “for the receipt, or expectation of receipt, of a thing of value,” “the Government must advance specific, individualized evidence that [a defendant] provided access to his collection of child pornography to another user with the expectation that that user would provide similar access to other child-pornography files.” Opinion at 15. In this case, the Court held the 5-level enhancement was justified because the defendant had engaged in the quid pro quo exchange of passwords protecting child pornography files with other users. Despite finding that the enhancement applied, the Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the District Court (Sullivan, J.) failed properly to calculate the applicable guideline to reflect the fact that, because …

Posted by
Categories: child pornography, guideline

Posted By
Categories: child pornography, guideline

Continue Reading